I Want My Flying Car

from the an-idea-for-the-perpetual-future dept

The flying car is one of those things that falls into the category of "the technology of the future... and it always will be." Over the years we've covered plenty of stories of companies still trying to get into the flying car business. The NY Times has an article checking in on the space, where it notes that, indeed, there are still a bunch of companies that are trying to perfect the flying car, while noting one of the major problems: cars are designed aerodynamically to try to stay on the ground -- airplanes are designed the opposite way. Plenty of people are also quick to point out the other issue: even if you could build a practical flying car... would you want to? The idea of today's drivers having to think in even more dimensions when they seem to have enough trouble on the road isn't encouraging.

Reader Comments

Unless there is secret unknown way to do this way more energy effecient: No.
I don't want to contribute to all that waste, cars are bad enough as it is. Why go of the ground? Isn't that waste? 3dimensions might be nice, but think of ALL the energy and efficiency it cost. What is even better about a flying car ride?
Is there anything I would even want, expect 'it's great.' I can get from point AtoB isn't flying only better because it is 'cool'?

Re:

For longer trips it would be more efficient because you wouldn't have to wind down the roads. That being said, I'd like to see flying taxi's emerge. That reduces the cost of flying, limits who can fly, and at least in some part mitigates the jerks who just want it to be 'cool.'

Question: If you consider all the time/gas people spend sitting in traffic and how they wouldn't have to in a flying car, do you think flying cars are still far less energy efficient? I'm not sure if there are any numbers on this sort of thing, but its at least something to consider, no?

Re:

Yes, the energy to get a vehicle into the air and keep it their would be far more than all of the gains by avoiding idling and comparatively inefficient road routes. Airplanes are extremely light and flimsy. They do not hold up at all in collisions. Street vehicles require a safety rating, which makes them heavy, and that means even more energy to keep them aloft.

In the end, I don't think we will see flying cars because the benefits just aren't high enough, especially compared to the costs. Vehicles would be very expensive. Fuel cost would be much higher. And, most importantly, fatality accidents would skyrocket. I think we're much more likely to see many-tiered roadways than flying vehicles.

Re: Way off subject and econ understanding

Capitalism is not the reason Chinese have so much of our money. Over regulation, too many politicians messing with the market, and economist propping up companies, bail-outs, lawyers, and unions. Not to mention health care for people illegally here, or people that don't have insurance. And the reason for the health care costs and insurance costs is lawyers, people living off the system and too much government involvement. If it was a free-market (capitalist) insurance, where I choose my medical insurance like I do my auto insurance you would see prices drop. And you could keep it with you with or without a job or when you change companies.

And you wonder why I plan to work overseas, like many friends already have.

Re: how about this old idea?

It'd be difficult to get that tech within the decade. The overhaul of the current infrastructure to ensure all those robotic cars can deal with every road out there would be ridiculous. Plus, you'll have to deal with a mix of robotic and human driven cars for awhile. You can't just make people give up their cars and get robotic ones. Either you have to subsidize robotic cars and give deadlines (like with the digital cable switchover... and look how that turned out) for human driven cars to be off the road.

it'll be extremely difficult and these hurdles will definitely push back that tech for awhile.

Energy problems are solvable

if the Industrial Complex's suppression of tech that competes with auto/tires/oil could be broken. There is an abundance of free energy available here on earth as Tesla proved many years ago. As soon as Tesla made known his intention to provide free energy to the world, JP Morgan shut him down. Once T. died, the US Gov't confiscated his notes and classified most of his research. One way to achieve a "flying" car would be to use the earth's magnetic field and a centrifugal force design, which interestingly would look like a saucer. The Germans in WW2 knew about this from Tesla designs and we inherited the tech through Operation Paperclip. Other sources of abundant energy could include Electrostatic, Geo-thermal, and Tidal. I would think our money-based economy would have to change to a resource-based economy, though this area is admittedly outside of my field of expertise.

Re: Energy problems are solvable

geothermal and tidal energy tech already exists and no, they're not that efficient. Propulsion using the earth's magnetic field also exists and no, it doesn't look like a flying saucer. Magnetic propulsion allows for tech that gives thrust with no moving parts and allows for the "rocket in a briefcase" scenario. However, its nowhere near being economically justifiable at this point.

Why would we need Health insurance, right now there is something like a 25% tax on medical providers just to take insurance.

A free market would say, Cash only, no insurance Thanks. Then insurance companys would have to accecpt claims directly from the person and pay them back instead of the medical provider. Which would be a more fair way to handle it, but insurance hates it because then thay have to staff call centers.

In addition most insurance companys started in the 50s when life saving systems dident cost as much as thay do now. Insead people got cancer and thay died, now people get cancer and thay get super radiation with tests costing millions and insane amounts of lawsuits for a Dr being human.

The idea is utopic for the following reasons:

1. The cost of developing a safe flying apparatus of this size will be huge and materials would be extremely expensive. If built with sub-par materials there would be so many lethal crashes that people would stop using them.
3. If it is produced for mass market like regular cars, imagine all the regulations and rules and training needed for average Joe?
This is just off the top of my head, I bet there are dozens of other reasons of why this wouldn't work in the nearest future.

flying cars - flying pigs

Bluntly given the lengths that people have gone to, to ensure that this planet continues to rely on mineral sludge the very least those same people can do is come up with a transport method that does not require billions spent on roads - oh sorry I forgot oil is used to make tyres - silly me......

Wow

Automation is the key

The time will come when cars, rather flying or not are totally under computer control. This addresses many of the issues. Also, closed loop control of a flying vehicle would likely be necessary for stability reasons.

Probably the single biggest threat to humanity is excessive reproductive rates. If we bring our numbers under control it will also address issues like energy availability.

Re: Automation is the key

I always chuckle when someone says they are "Speaking only on my own behalf", and then list all of their organizations.
If you are speaking just for yourself, WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT about your affiliations....